To be fair, Jesus didn't follow the Old Testament either.
Whole point of the Sermon on the Mount (along with pretty much everything else he ever said), both figuratively and literally, was to invalidate all those dictated rules in favor of the personal responsibility of the "do unto others" business. He was tired of people hiding behind an out of context, selfish, or biased interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (or the Old Testament, same thing) to justify behavior clearly founded in hatred or greed. Stop a stoning here, whip money changers there. Of course you wouldn't ever know what he was talking about without having the Old Testament included as well - for context and reference, not for rules and regulations.
Seems like a cruel bit of dramatic irony that the hateful people today who call themselves Christian tend to be the ones most ignorant of his message.
Thanks, Erik. Updated.
Fascinating, totally old school. Of course the photographic material probably came out of a digital printer and the image went back into a digital camera, but that was an interesting visit to the 1970s between. How could you resist rub on lettering? Must have been hard.
kudo's to you sir
I like turtles. No old testament quoting by anyone as there is nobody in the entire state of SC that ACTUALLY follows the original good book. I mean no barbeque, no fabric blends, no shrimp, no oysters, no Walmart on Sundays and above all no football or football watching rules, it's just not possible here in SC. Forget the no homo rule, thats a minor infraction compared to the watching or playing of the Pigskin Orb. Besides, a true follower of the original good book would never read the blasphemous rag known as the CP.
Hoping for a favorable decision before my partner and I reach 32 years of non-wedded bliss next spring.
freefirezone proving once again that you can troll hard without actually knowing anything about the subject you are trolling. Maybe if you actually researched the topic beyond your own translation of the Old Testament, you would actually know what you are talking about.
Marriage (or unions) predates written history, including the Old Testament.
It is funny when so called Christians take a solid stance on one part of their religion's past, while completely ignoring others.
Can we only use one particular ancient Arab definition of marriage (which, as Mr. Eckert has shown, is not what you think it is) or are other ancient Arab definitions acceptable? Can we use other cultures' ancient definitions of marriage or only Middle Eastern? Does the definition have to be ancient?
If so, why are you using a relatively modern one? A marriage definition that involves two consenting adults entering into a contract for intangible and immaterial reasons (simple love or companionship) does not have a long and storied history as a cultural norm and there is no earthly reason why this pursuit should be denied to people with alternative sexualities.
You may believe in heavenly reasons, but the U.S. Constitution does not. I recommend not getting gay married yourself, and then you'll never, ever, be affected by it in any significant way.
"The reporter was teasing Jim McNerney about his upcoming birthday and there was a definite "tongue in cheek" attitude when she asked her question. He responded in kind. There was no malice or hostility in his response. It was an off-the-cuff remark, self-deprecating and not serious at all. IMHO, he has apologized more than enough."
Thank you tpm843! I guess CEO's aren't supposed to have a sense of humor. Lord knows no one else does!
As Curtis Brown accurately points out, the City is doing some serious sleight of hand here. What was once proposed as an "overlay zone" to place slightly stricter restrictions on new bars/restaurants is now an outright ban....and yet people are saying the F&B people won?!? While the moratorium is "temporary" (at only 1095 days long), how is that any better that what was originally proposed? As residents of this city, are we really ready to say no new restaurants can open in the next 3 years? While I think some changes need to be made in order to improve the quality of life for downtown residents, outright bans are not the answer. I just hope people speak up at both of the upcoming meetings because this new plan is by no means a victory.
It might not be stupid but it is business as usual for the Democratic party in this state... which usually loses.
How many Democrats don't bother voting in South Carolina because it historically skews so red? How many Democrats don't bother voting in South Carolina because we lose with this pandering-to-conservatives bullshit the state party pulls like we see with Sheheen?
I understand the conventional wisdom of low-information "swing" voters and base politics, but give me a break. The conventional wisdom hasn't been winning Democrats many elections, why would it change this time? If Sheheen wins it'll be because Haley is a disaster, not because he "persuaded" anybody with this weak sauce.
As long as the Democratic party in this state thinks in election cycles instead of generational we will never make any progress in creating any substantial policy debate in governance.
How about instead of utilizing a mealy-mouthed strategy based on value-compromising whack-a-mole in an effort to persuade the always small and shrinking pool of "undecided" voters, we get candidates focused on growing a healthy Democratic base? Maybe we'd lose this time and the next, but we need to be building an honest and inspiring foundation. I don't see any value in this short-term sell-out business. That's exactly WHY young voters aren't a factor in these elections. And young voters who are uninspired by lackluster politics don't generally become reliable adult voters.
This is the South. Nobody's going to have a problem fighting a lost cause as long as it's one they can believe in.
freefirezone, the Old Testament Hebrew does not actually have a word for "marry". The phrase was simply "he took a woman" and the way you "took" a woman was by being the first to have sex with her. There was no word for "wife", just the phrase "his" woman", and no word for husband except the same word ba'al used for "owner" of any piece of property or attribute. If another man has sex with "your" woman, that is adultery, a serious crime, but if you have sex with another woman, that just means you "took" another woman. There is a verb "betroth" which refers to a payment to the father for the right to take the daughter later: the law makes it clear that this already creates the property right, so that another man would be an adulterer to have sex with her. If one of your women "no longer is pleasing", you may get rid of her (this is where Jesus criticizes the Old Testament) as long as you make a public record so another man can take her without fear of adultery charge. The only exception is if you took the woman by force: then she's still yours, of course, but you cannot get rid of her, and you still owe the father money.
I was going to go to the game but I think I'll give my tickets away
Bottom photo by Kirk Chambers of Brothers and Craft
I've gone back over the past month of comments and none of your comments have been deleted.
Another benchmark: North Carolina, which is slightly bluer than South Carolina and has bigger pockets of liberal intellectuals but is somewhat useful for comparison purposes, still passed an anti-marriage referendum in 2010 with >60% of the vote.
It's tempting to look at national polling, momentum in the courts and other states' ballot boxes, etc. and assume that attitudes among likely voters in our state have changed as well, but numbers don't really reflect that.
We are a reactionary populace.
The other effect of moving downtown? The Pride organizers spit in the face of the people of North Charleston who accepted them when the City rejected them. I am glad that this event has been a success and has been able to grow and hope that it does grow. But, the way they treated Mayor Summey who put his political neck out there and lost votes for supporting the event was not classy.
The best way to censor something is with your wallet. If you don't like it, don't watch it or pay to watch it. Rent was a slickly produced play about a bunch of people who didn't pay their bills, if that is what you like, who cares. If you don't like it, don't pay to see it.
Lets make 'em feel like they won-then they'll shut up
Why am I not shocked that Mayor Riley's retooling of the ordinance resulted in more government constraints on small businesses that serve alcohol. To further help local businesses that don't serve alcohol, Mayor Riley should make online purchases illegal within the city. Maybe some rent controls would also help.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper